Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4922145
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are issues that are causing serious harm and distress to women across society. Members of the Assembly have been victims of those who perpetrate this despicable behaviour. As Members know, it had been my intention to extend to Northern Ireland, by means of a legislative consent motion, the provisions in the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill for an offence of creation of a deepfake image. However, recent unexpected developments in England and Wales have meant that I have had to reconsider that approach. The UK Government are proceeding with a deepfake offence in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Neither its revised structure, which would not sit appropriately within our legislative framework, nor the time available before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament allow for its extension to Northern Ireland. It is now my intention to table an amendment, at Consideration Stage, to the Justice Bill, which I introduced to the Assembly last September, to provide for a Northern Ireland-specific deepfake offence that can be structured to ensure that all aspects of the offending behaviour can be captured. That will give the Assembly the opportunity to provide for a robust offence that will criminalise not only the creation of deepfake images but the sharing of them. Such is Mr Buckley's concern for women that he walks out in the middle of an answer on this issue.
232 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.31 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.60 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.